Christian Anarchism

[Rick Otto]

I ran across this term while doing some wiki searching about Bogumils and how heresies in general were mixed up with political contentions that mixed in with what became religious differences between East and West. (My wife is reading some enormous book called The History of Europe, and keeps teasing me with incredibly interesting stuff)
And it makes sense to me that something political was going on when I look at what seems petty reasons to schism over.

At any rate, when I back away from Christianity far enough to see all of it from its schismed core to its fuzzy edges, I see a semi-unruly community only God could ride herd on. So I was both a little pleased and alarmed when the description I was reading seemed to fit me to a "T".
I say "alarmed" simply because of the popular negative slant on the word "anarchy", especially its association with poorly focused and violently angry discontent. I may indulge in occasional smack talk, but I think violence is counterproductive in the long view.

So before I dive down this rabbit hole to find out what it's about, I thought i'd ask all my fine forum colleagues to weigh with whatever fact, opinion, rumor or innuendo they might wish to throw at this thread.

As always, ... have fun, but be nice!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

 

[Rick Otto]

Jacques Ellul notes that the final verse of the Book of Judges (Judges 21:25) states that there was no king in Israel and that "everyone did as they saw fit".[7][8][9] Subsequently, as recorded in the first Book of Samuel (1 Samuel 8) the people of Israel wanted a king "so as to be like other nations".[10][11] God declared that the people had rejected him as their king. He warned that a human king would lead to militarism, conscription and taxation, and that their pleas for mercy from the king's demands would go unanswered. Samuel passed on God's warning to the Israelites but they still demanded a king, and Saul became their ruler.[12][13] Much of the subsequent Old Testament chronicles the Israelites trying to live with this decision.[14]

More than any other Bible source, the Sermon on the Mount is used as the basis for Christian anarchism.[5] Alexandre Christoyannopoulos explains that the Sermon perfectly illustrates Jesus' central teaching of love and forgiveness. Christian anarchists claim that the state, founded on violence, contravenes the Sermon and Jesus' call to love our enemies.[5]

The gospels tell of Jesus' temptation in the desert. For the final temptation, Jesus is taken up to a high mountain by Satan and told that if he bows down to Satan he will give him all the kingdoms of the world.[15] Christian anarchists use this as evidence that all Earthly kingdoms and governments are ruled by Satan, otherwise they would not be Satan's to give.[16] Jesus refuses the temptation, choosing to serve God instead, implying that Jesus is aware of the corrupting nature of Earthly power.[17]

Christian eschatology and various Christian anarchists, such as Jacques Ellul, have identified the state and political power as the Beast in the Book of Revelation.[18][19]

-Wiki

 

[Inkfingers]

Yes, I am equally uncomfortable with the word "anarchy" because it seems to apply to the idea of self-will and self-rule, rather than God's rule (and when I see it promoted by people it typically means I can expect their children to be vile, rude and indisciplined brats who run amok whilst their ink-covered parents get wasted on a mixture of weed and cheap lager).

But at the same time I have found myself lately wondering whether all State is Babylon (as a general manifestation of the worship of human power to supposedly provide peace, security and order). I would include economic empires and corporatism amonst "State".

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, I am equally uncomfortable with the word "anarchy" because it seems to apply to the idea of self-will and self-rule, rather than God's rule (and when I see it promoted by people it typically means I can expect their children to be vile, rude and indisciplined brats who run amok whilst their ink-covered parents get wasted on a mixture of weed and cheap lager).

But at the same time I have found myself lately wondering whether all State is Babylon (as a general manifestation of the worship of human power to supposedly provide peace, security and order).

Well,... I think one principle of it might be that God did not give man dominion over other men.
For that reason we have covenants... contracts, if you will, whereby we surrender some portion of our freedom from dominion, in pursuit of value attainable only by co-operation.
Upon that, we impose that contracts must be by informed consent lest fraud and coercion occur. So lawful government is by consent.
We haven't had lawful gov. In America since the Civil War. Federal and State governments were incorporated, and the Uniform Commercial Code has replaced the constitution in our courtrooms. Our ignorance keeps us manageable by our economic shepherds, the central bankers who shear us every year, and have bankrupted us twice in order to buy up everything we create, for pennies on the dollar.
Rant over.
lol

 

[Inkfingers]

Well,... I think one principle of it might be that God did not give man dominion over other men.

The problem is that many "anarachists" see that as a licence to engage in the degenerate (and in some cases deny any position of parents as "arkon" over their children).

There are two ways you can go from Babel. You can go down into the Bestial that Babel claims (in its tyranny) a solution to the chaos of. Or you can go up into the Godly, which brings the order that Babel so desperately seeks...but it does so at the cost of human pride and vanity (which is a price that Babel is unwilling to pay).

1) Godly
2) Babel
3) Bestial

Babel always starts out as Utopian, but it always ends up a Totalitarian Dystopia in its desparation to keep the chaos of Bestial in check through the power of man (that it worships). Think "Darth Vader" if you want a popular image of where it heads.

Virtually every "anarchist" that I have ever spoken to though is opposing Babel from beneath rather than from above...which is why it is dangerous to join Christian and Anarchist together in a phrase...

We haven't had lawful gov. In America since the Civil War. Federal and State governments were incorporated, and the Uniform Commercial Code has replaced the constitution in our courtrooms. Our ignorance keeps us manageable by our economic shepherds, the central bankers who shear us every year, and have bankrupted us twice in order to buy up everything we create, for pennies on the dollar.
Rant over.
lol

I am not unaccustomed to soap boxes myself

Our politics are dominated by two wings of Babel - the Corporatist Plutocrats and the Socialists; although they are both increasingly under attack from the "beneath Babel" opponents (street anarchists and an increasingly self-obsessed generation who want little more than maximum immediate indulgence of appetite).

 

[Rick Otto]

The problem is that many "anarachists" see that as a licence to engage in the degenerate (and in some cases deny any position of parents as "arkon" over their children).

There are two ways you can go from Babel. You can go down into the Bestial that Babel claims (in its tyranny) a solution to the chaos of. Or you can go up into the Godly, which brings the order that Babel so desperately seeks...but it does so at the cost of human pride and vanity (which is a price that Babel is unwilling to pay).

1) Godly
2) Babel
3) Bestial

Babel always starts out as Utopian, but it always ends up a Totalitarian Dystopia in its desparation to keep the chaos of Bestial in check through the power of man (that it worships). Think "Darth Vader" if you want a popular image of where it heads.

Virtually every "anarchist" that I have ever spoken to though is opposing Babel from beneath rather than from above...which is why it is dangerous to join Christian and Anarchist together in a phrase...

I am not unaccustomed to soap boxes myself

Our politics are dominated by two wings of Babel - the Corporatist Plutocrats and the Socialists; although they are both increasingly under attack from the "beneath Babel" opponents (street anarchists and an increasingly self-obsessed generation who want little more than maximum immediate indulgence of appetite).

Very well put.
So it seems we are on some familiar territory.
Have you looked into the "Freeman" and "Sovreignity" movements and the "Redemption Process"?
The redemption process purports to legally vacate existing contracts that have totally usurped individual rights (sovereignity). It follows UCC protocols, but I haven't heard much reliable evidence of success. Some guy down in Texas has a site called stopthepirates that reveals the most I've heard, but asks 64 bucks for an instruction kit and email consults. I saw a description of this stuff as domestic terrorist profiles on the Southern Poverty Law Center's web page. It started out pretty accurate but quickly distressed into disinfo an demonizing.
The FBI site is similar in its categorization and description.

 

[listed]

Very well put.
So it seems we are on some familiar territory.
Have you looked into the "Freeman" and "Sovreignity" movements and the "Redemption Process"?
The redemption process purports to legally vacate existing contracts that have totally usurped individual rights (sovereignity). It follows UCC protocols, but I haven't heard much reliable evidence of success. Some guy down in Texas has a site called stopthepirates that reveals the most I've heard, but asks 64 bucks for an instruction kit and email consults. I saw a description of this stuff as domestic terrorist profiles on the Southern Poverty Law Center's web page. It started out pretty accurate but quickly distressed into disinfo an demonizing.
The FBI site is similar in its categorization and description.

I moved from the city to the sticks. My Mom calls me a committed hermit. I kinda like it. More and more I find I can not participate in the values of society (Christian or not). I am not a groupie. So give me a shack and a garden behind a locked gate. All you other people can surrender your will to the mindless group if you like. Not for me. I would rather do without. Yes I know full well what is coming. I love God but not the organized church. I will not give my life for what goes on in them. I would give my life for Jesus though. They think I am nuts and I do not care.

 

[listed]

Very well put.
So it seems we are on some familiar territory.
Have you looked into the "Freeman" and "Sovreignity" movements and the "Redemption Process"?
The redemption process purports to legally vacate existing contracts that have totally usurped individual rights (sovereignity). It follows UCC protocols, but I haven't heard much reliable evidence of success. Some guy down in Texas has a site called stopthepirates that reveals the most I've heard, but asks 64 bucks for an instruction kit and email consults. I saw a description of this stuff as domestic terrorist profiles on the Southern Poverty Law Center's web page. It started out pretty accurate but quickly distressed into disinfo an demonizing.
The FBI site is similar in its categorization and description.

I wonder what you would find if you really looked into the private life of high government people in DC. Bet you find many that have gone sovereign. I certainly am thinking about it.

 

[Nanopants]

For the totalitarian, no amount of coercing the unruly can change the reality that most people cannot be totally controlled.

For the anarchist, no amount of fighting against authority can change the fact that the vast majority of us, including anarchists, can exert some measure of coercion and control over others.

The problem I have with anarchism is the same as the problem I have with totalitarianism: neither is true.

 

[listed]

I ran across this term while doing some wiki searching about Bogumils and how heresies in general were mixed up with political contentions that mixed in with what became religious differences between East and West. (My wife is reading some enormous book called The History of Europe, and keeps teasing me with incredibly interesting stuff)
And it makes sense to me that something political was going on when I look at what seems petty reasons to schism over.

At any rate, when I back away from Christianity far enough to see all of it from its schismed core to its fuzzy edges, I see a semi-unruly community only God could ride herd on. So I was both a little pleased and alarmed when the description I was reading seemed to fit me to a "T".
I say "alarmed" simply because of the popular negative slant on the word "anarchy", especially its association with poorly focused and violently angry discontent. I may indulge in occasional smack talk, but I think violence is counterproductive in the long view.

So before I dive down this rabbit hole to find out what it's about, I thought i'd ask all my fine forum colleagues to weigh with whatever fact, opinion, rumor or innuendo they might wish to throw at this thread.

As always, ... have fun, but be nice!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

After reading your link I thought I might take a different approach. My original take is Christian anarchy is occurring in the church over covenants mainly in my participation here at CF. But in reference to your link I would have to say there are 2 main groups involved and I can not participate with either - The Christian right and the Kingdom Now people. I think this stems from the organized church bowing to the pagan idea 1 can not be a religious person (especially a Christian even more narrowly a fundamental evangelical type Christian) has to lay down (renounce) their religion (or relationship with God) to be involved in our political system. Things are so far out of balance there will be an eventual 1 way because of over powering numbers will have full control. There are some very scary things on the immediate horizon. It much better for me to keep my mouth shut and basically withdraw from the system. No society will not accept this and that includes the sleeping church. Like has been said when good men will not stand up bad men will. This war has been lost long ago.

When I was a grade scholar going to the moon was science fiction. People are alive in my state that arrived in covered wagons. And we ain't seen nuthin yet. My first computer was amazing, and today I can carry more computer power in 1 hand via my lap top that the 1 that ran a major section of my state. This does not touch on the political scene. I heard just yesterday next year there will be enough finance power in the hand of 6 men to rule the world economically. Anyone who is aware has seen more and more the transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. But the people cry to the government for deliverance from their own wanton consumption and other wicked ways. Yes out right slavery is upon us. Today a panhandler makes more than minimum wage. The carnie is right a sucker is born every minute.

Did I get in enough trouble yet?

Good night folks.

 

[Rick Otto]

OK... I see this topic has some potential for generating remarks... lol, but let's not forget to consider the topic on whatever of its own merits we can find.

Here's an idea: if it's possible for you, imagine anarchy as a value neutral reality.
That way, it is neither good or bad until it is applied for better or worse.
I do that with every system of order. It seems to me that it really doesn't matter what system of order is in use as long as everyone treats each other decently.

From my perspective, the world has been in anarchy for a long time, and there has been both good and bad come of it.
Anarchy seems to be the default state of mankind. It is in operation unless tyranny gets control. If love is the predominate motivation instead of dominance, the structure underneath it is mere form of relationship, not the substance of relationship.

 

[Inkfingers]

From my perspective, the world has been in anarchy for a long time, and there has been both good and bad come of it.
Anarchy seems to be the default state of mankind. It is in operation unless tyranny gets control. If love is the predominate motivation instead of dominance, the structure underneath it is mere form of relationship, not the substance of relationship.

The problem there is that anarchy is anarchy - ie: it discards all notion of rulership, which includes getting rid of criminal laws as well (and, as I said before, it at least calls into question the healthy and right hierarchy of parent over child).

Its better to take a 3 tier view rather than a one size fits all view. So that the godly have a great deal of personal autonomy and are rulers rather than ruled. Then the ungodly but tractable are the next tier down; with much less personal autonomy, being much more subject to management by the higher tier. Finally there is the lowest tier (the ungodly and untractable criminal class) who are to be treated as what they are; wolves.

Absolute anarchy would unleash them all; and the middle tier would rapidly create tyranny in both their selfishness and their need to keep the criminals in check - which is the situation we face now.....Babel.

If we had actual anarchy again, it would just be pressing restart on Babel but would not actually destroy it.

 

[Albion]

For the totalitarian, no amount of coercing the unruly can change the reality that most people cannot be totally controlled.

For the anarchist, no amount of fighting against authority can change the fact that the vast majority of us, including anarchists, can exert some measure of coercion and control over others.

The problem I have with anarchism is the same as the problem I have with totalitarianism: neither is true.

Hmm. But if totalitarianism is not 100% achievable, it's terrifyingly close to that--and we've witnessed it in operation. Anarchism, on the other hand, is only a concept, never has existed in human history, and probably cannot.

 

[listed]

I think Christianity is branded in this way because society in general does not want it because it goes against their wishes. They want life free from God. When I see what the organized church does to people within its ranks I have no sympathy for it. It is rightly deserved.

 

[Albion]

I think Christianity is branded in this way because society in general does not want it because it goes against their wishes. They want life free from God. When I see what the organized church does to people within its ranks I have no sympathy for it. It is rightly deserved.

What's the "it" there again?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

OK... I see this topic has some potential for generating remarks... lol, but let's not forget to consider the topic on whatever of its own merits we can find.

Here's an idea: if it's possible for you, imagine anarchy as a value neutral reality.
That way, it is neither good or bad until it is applied for better or worse.
I do that with every system of order. It seems to me that it really doesn't matter what system of order is in use as long as everyone treats each other decently.

From my perspective, the world has been in anarchy for a long time, and there has been both good and bad come of it.
Anarchy seems to be the default state of mankind. It is in operation unless tyranny gets control. If love is the predominate motivation instead of dominance, the structure underneath it is mere form of relationship, not the substance of relationship.

From the perspective of the sermon on the mount that the Op points to I see the value neutral reality as being the concept of evil.
It is neither good nor bad until it is applied for better or worse.
You have applied it to 'love thy neighbour'above as a fir instance. It is a default state if everyone where to live in their natural environment which is in God where we have our being. Just as the birds live in the air and the fish live in the sea, we have our living and being in God. That is our dominion also, however few apply it to their lives. They have handed it over as much as the people did in Samuel to have a king rule over them. That's what is mostly seen in the lives of people today.

Anarchy (freedom in the sence Jesus taught) I see as the need to bring about the sence of God's kingship as king of kings over our own private dominion's of our lives. Like Job who feared God and shunned evil, the need is also to recognise the source of integrity as being God Himself, not a religious order or gvrnmt, nor the person themselves. And in doing so the rightful kingship of own's own life is restored, built upon a rock. The sand is to build on anything else.

Evil according to this state exists only in as much power is given to it, and in that Jesus points to the power of thought and that fleeing from evil will make it null and void.

The Lord's Prayer at the end of the Sermon breaks it down to 'our Father' "in Heaven" 'Holy'
with His kingdom in each of us, His will always at work, our manna accorded to the moment.
Love thy neighbour in this perfect state or your not there yet, forgiveness key to letting go.
Evil thoughts not followed immediately deliver one
Always put God first.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Do you think Amish fall under the christian anarchy umbrella? They deal with all problems within the community 99% of the time and never use higher courts of the city/county/state/federal. They are fairly autonomous from the state. I do not think christian anarchy to the point of individual rule is possible. If God wanted it to that point he wouldn't have created community rules for the Hebrews. Small communities or church level as rule might be the lowest level, but the idea of such a thing in today's world smells of cultish whims, but then again.. we have the Amish.

 

[Albion]

Do you think Amish fall under the christian anarchy umbrella? They deal with all problems within the community 99% of the time and never use higher courts of the city/county/state/federal. They are fairly autonomous from the state. I do not think christian anarchy to the point of individual rule is possible. If God wanted it to that point he wouldn't have created community rules for the Hebrews. Small communities or church level as rule might be the lowest level, but the idea of such a thing in today's world smells of cultish whims, but then again.. we have the Amish.

Well, no.

But maybe we need a more exact definition.

The Amish are among the most controlling of all groups and denominations within Christendom. But you will probably say that you were referring to how they stand with regard to the US government inside which they operate...and that they stand apart from state and federal law.

Except that they don't. Yes, they have exceptional religious liberty, but they are controlled to a certain extent, no less than are the American Indians operating reservations and casinos off-reservation, perhaps moreso. For example, the Amish pay the same income, property, sales, and other taxes as everyone else.

So, I'd say that if we are speaking of Christian Anarchism, we have to speak of real Anarchism, i.e. NO government. Otherwise, it's just a discussion about the size of government, a matter of degree, not really Anarchism.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Well, no.

But maybe we need a more exact definition.

The Amish are among the most controlling of all groups and denominations within Christendom. But you will probably say that you were referring to how they stand with regard to the US government inside which they operate...and that they stand apart from state and federal law.

Except that they don't. Yes, they have exceptional religious liberty, but they are controlled to a certain extent, no less than are the American Indians operating reservations and casinos off-reservation, perhaps moreso. For example, the Amish pay the same income, property, sales, and other taxes as everyone else.

So, I'd say that if we are speaking of Christian Anarchism, we have to speak of real Anarchism, i.e. NO government. Otherwise, it's just a discussion about the size of government, a matter of degree, not really Anarchism.

Ah ok.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Jacques Ellul notes that the final verse of the Book of Judges (Judges 21:25) states that there was no king in Israel and that "everyone did as they saw fit".[7][8][9] Subsequently, as recorded in the first Book of Samuel (1 Samuel 8) the people of Israel wanted a king "so as to be like other nations".[10][11] God declared that the people had rejected him as their king. He warned that a human king would lead to militarism, conscription and taxation, and that their pleas for mercy from the king's demands would go unanswered. Samuel passed on God's warning to the Israelites but they still demanded a king, and Saul became their ruler.[12][13] Much of the subsequent Old Testament chronicles the Israelites trying to live with this decision.[14]

More than any other Bible source, the Sermon on the Mount is used as the basis for Christian anarchism.[5] Alexandre Christoyannopoulos explains that the Sermon perfectly illustrates Jesus' central teaching of love and forgiveness. Christian anarchists claim that the state, founded on violence, contravenes the Sermon and Jesus' call to love our enemies.[5]

The gospels tell of Jesus' temptation in the desert. For the final temptation, Jesus is taken up to a high mountain by Satan and told that if he bows down to Satan he will give him all the kingdoms of the world.[15] Christian anarchists use this as evidence that all Earthly kingdoms and governments are ruled by Satan, otherwise they would not be Satan's to give.[16] Jesus refuses the temptation, choosing to serve God instead, implying that Jesus is aware of the corrupting nature of Earthly power.[17]

Christian eschatology and various Christian anarchists, such as Jacques Ellul, have identified the state and political power as the Beast in the Book of Revelation.[18][19]

-Wiki

It seems like Christian anarchism is more of a Christian philosophy that focuses on the defiance of the want of power, whether it be political, social, or personal.